It would be a great blessing if Fulcrum and its members were able to bind up wounds and build bridges in the way that Chris Baker envisages. The trouble is that the attribution of 'intellectual contortions' to other Christians, who believe they too are reading the bible with integrity, isn't much of a start. The idea that Fulcrum always provides an irenic and conciliatory ground would be wonderful, but I think it suggests that Anglican evangelicals who can accept the ministry of women and support the move towards women in the episcopate but are intransigeant about gays, have not understood how they look to people like me and others who count in their eyes as revisionists (or chads -- it depends who you read on this site!) I found faith in an evangelical parish church under the guidance of the saintly Robin Blandford. That was forty odd years ago, and my own faith has developed and expanded in all sorts of ways -- but I don't think becoming a contortionist was one of them! in via

Tony

Jody, it's kind of you to ask. Chad appears on the Fulcrum site somewhere as the opposite of trad(itionalist), but I can't locate it. I've tried to write down what I mean about my problems with logically distinguishing the Fulcrum doctrine from others supposedly less centrally evangelical (Reform, mainstream?), but I don't think I can post it: can you e-mail me (adomay@hotmail.com)? Apologies to other readers for personal stuff.

That's ok, Jody. A propos of Civil Partnerships, the image of the opponents of civil partnerships and gay relationships in the clergy was not exactly improved, in my view,  by the contribution of Canon Sugden and Dr Giddings to last night's Channel 4 documentary on the experience of gay clergy. (They have been dubbed Gilbert and George elsewhere!) Canon Sugden in particular seemed also to be pressing for the resignation of ++ Rowan. Did anyone else watch it?

Tony

Karen, the other really important organization offering a sympathetic approach to gays and lesbians is Courage (www.courage.org.uk) that also gives expression to Roy Clements' ministry, i think. There ia and evangelical fellowisp in LGCM too.

Tony

I said something like this on another thread, so apologies for repetition. It would be terrific if Fulcrum did provide a forum. The voices that feel uncomfortable with the hardline position adopted and promulgated by the website and its leadership are generally not from specialists, so there is no equal discussion.

In a lot of ways the essay on Calvin (that well known Anglican divine) and usury is remarkably nuanced. But you don't need to read Dr Goddard very closely to see the careful entrenchment of anti-gay views: e.g. he speaks of areas of legitimate disagreement as in 'questions surrounding gender equality and the role of women in marriage, society and especially the church', but immediately goes on: 'In yet other areas, such as homosexuality, recent decades have seen changes in evangelical understanding but evangelicals as a whole have resisted (to my mind rightly) arguments undermining traditional teaching that all sexual conduct outside life-long heterosexual marriage is wrong.' The summary prejudges alternatives. The argument is illustrated a bit later by a consideration of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts and the inclusion of Gentile believers as a model for the full inclusion of gay and lesbian people in Christian fellowship and ministry [and we should remember that in some Anglican churches they are effectively excommunicate]: 'In Acts 15 where the early church is considering changing the requirements to be made of Gentile converts, the testimony of Peter's experiences in mission to Gentiles is of crucial importance. This incident has recently been applied (often illegitimately) to contemporary discussions about revising church teaching on homosexuality, but it does remind us of the limited but important role of Christian experience in moral deliberation.' The case is not seen as an opportunity to open up a conversation, rather (like the use of 'undermining' earlier) it is intended to close it down. The only surprising thing in the review of the Acts 15 debate is the word 'often' before 'illegitimately' -- have there been times when the application of Acts 15 to our disagreements about gay and lesbian Christians and ministry have not been illegitimate?

The discussion of Stephen Fowl's contribution seems to pull in contradictory directions based on the (presumably ilegitimate) use of Acts 15 and the Gentile-inclusion-model: non-gentiles had to recognize the holiness of the Gentile believers; so non-homosexuals presumably have to recognize gay Christians as holy people, and I assume this can only make sense if they are in gay relationships rather than gay in intention and desire. But then Prof O'Donovan is brought in to insist that 'information about the agent's character is necessary for an evaluative process of moral thought in which the thinker stands at an observer's distance from the agent and her acts and assesses them'. I don't know if I have misunderstood the drift of the argument here -- but it looks to me as though that means that what gay Christians may report is a priori irrelevant because their behaviour in homosexual relationships necessarily on the pre-existing assumptions rules them to be morally inadequate: looks a bit circular to me.

In what follows, an interesting account of Calvin's approach to usury (which was one of the parallel cases raised by + Bangor) looks as though it provides some real grounds for enabling rather than blocking reformation in relation to gay Christians: the plea that like Calvin (firstly) we should address the issue within the fellowship of the church(es) looks promising  but that assumes that fellowship has already been entered into, which seems to me doubtful; similarly, caution in pronouncements on complex moral issues (fourthly: but perhaps this one isnt really so complicated), and (fifthly) the base line is to be the law of love for the sake of the poor. On the use of scripture, points in Dr Goddards summary of Calvins practice from fourth to eighth look fairly hopeful for a reforming approach to the place of gay Christians. Unsurprisingly the full weight of evangelical scholarship is brought to bear in the end via a long quotation from Prof. ODonovan to reassert the practical impossibility of any reformation of conservative, evangelical attitudes to gay and lesbian Christians in church fellowship and ministry, given that they cannot 'marry' and the only legitimate alternative is to remain single. I think this must mean that there can be no circumstances in which it would ever be appropriate to pray that God might be active in a same-sex relationship, whether civilly registered or not. This is because of an unbending determination to maintain a traditional view of marriage, on the one hand, and because, paradoxically, of adherence to a view of the created order of human beings, derived as far as I can tell from the Genesis story, which is acknowledged to be less prominent in the tradition. The conclusion was predictable from the implications of the earlier parts of the essay. But as far as I can see, this still leaves evangelical Christians with very Bad News to share with gay people as part of their gospel. Apologies for the length of this post. I promise it will be my last.

Dear Karen and George: First, the News of the World and gay footbalers -- I don't think anyone ever imagined that all readers of the News of the World had 'accepted homosexuality as "normal"', but they might equally want the death penalty restored or think that black people are inferior. I don't see what difference their views make to a Christian's judgement.

On your points George, I absolutely agree. As I tried to say in my last overlong post, the discussion of Calvin in the recently posted article, like most of the rest of the 'debate' is forensic: it is explicitly designed to underwrite the conservative, non-reforming view of gay Christians. Every opening to a change in attitudes is close off -- like someone plugging leaks in a dyke! The point you make about 'what it means to be human' is devastating if it implies that gay men and lesbians are in some way less than fully human... the alternatives are those offered by the (in my view discredited ex-gay movement) or by the imposition of total celibacy on gay people. I've heard of no others.

Good to hear your voice! -- in via

Tony

Hi Jody -- I thought that the traditional way of speaking indicated that we encounter God in Word and Sacrament in the Eucharist, and that they are different things even though they are ways in which God is present through and in both. T

Jody, I think the orthodox understanding is that the sacraments always involve a physical, bodily action related to the individual beyond mere presence or listening (that would cover Reconciliation too in catholic terms, I guess!) and that they are effectual means of grace. There must be some reason to distinguish between Word and Sacrament. Tony

Richard

Thanks for your very clear account in your conversation with Jody. I can see very hopeful things in your insistence that human sexuality is variously broken. My concern, however, is that your model doesn't really listen to what gay people have to say. The phrase homosexual praxis sounds very grown up and calm, but it's just a greek way of insisting on the difference between orientation and acts, isn't it. Gay people don't think that their relationships, fully (physically) expressed and entered into, are like doing yoga or weightlifting -- or 'practising' medicine. Gay sex is and unfolds and realizes who they are. Gene Robinson said as much when he was in London. Secondly, the argument from 'natural design' that is fairly current is unhelpful. The idea of 'original design' seems to get us into the dubious company of intelligent design, and really doesn't have sufficient room for human (and natural) diversity. In the end we have to decide whether we can recognize and affirm the full humanity of gay people as they are and as they perceive themselves -- not compassionately explain to them that their experience is mis-perceived! If we can't do that, then something has gone wrong.

Thanks for continuing to think about the difficult business of listening to others. I wish I was better at it, so apologies if I've got you wrong.

in via

Tony

Hi Jody and Richard, and thanks for taking up what I am trying to present as a problem for evangelicals who both want to stop being excluding but don't want to reform their position on the expression of gay sexulaity. It is difficult, I know. I am like you, Richard, in as much as I have moved to a much more catholic view of the sacramanets than I had when I was growing up!  I suppose my eschatology is more 'realized' than yours, though: when I pray for the Kingdom to come ... and God's will to be done on earth, I see the two petitions as closely connected. So deferring a solution to the life to come doesn't provide as much of a framework for me as for you (two?). The awkward thing about arguments derived from examples of people who are single and would like to be partnered is that the principle involved is sidestepped. A straight single might at any time meet the right person and enter a partnership and so marry: sexuality can find physical expression, with the blessing of the church. Gay people, though, are never in that position: the only thing on offer under any circumstances is celibacy -- and though this is only being publicly admitted about the position of the clergy, it actually applies to any gay or lesbian person. So something marks out gays and lesbians as different from the rest of humanity, in principle. (The other sorts of argument that people come up with are usually based on some model of physical or mental disability...) Presuppositions of this kind are what do the real damage to the personhood of gays and lesbians! The transformation of  our nature beyond this life isn't usually appealed to in questions like this one -- and the orthodox understanding is that grace perfects nature, and is perfecting it now -- through the sacraments and the sanctification of the Spirit. I think I understand the anxiety about church leadership, but it isn't empirically at all obvious that gay and lesbian priests offer a bad example. They are among the saintliest people I know -- specially the ones who have been forced out of their vocations and still stick with the church. A lot saintlier at any rate than threatening letters ad clerum! This in great haste, so apologies for shorthand if there is any.

Tony

Hi Jody, Roger, Karen

Jody, I don't think the idea that there are primary and secondary issues in doctrine comes from Roy Clements; it's a common (and I think traditional) way of distinguishing between things that matter so much that they divide 'orthodox' from 'unorthodox' -- say like the Holy Trinity or the humanity of Christ. I agree that we don't read scripture in the way thay you describe -- and there are vast swathes of Proverbs, e.g., or Song of Songs, or even Ecclesiates that we read (if at all) with a grain of salt or a smile... I don't know the Pauline scholar your mention -- and I'm not a theologian or anything -- but I wonder why we have to make this huge effort to explain away things in Pauline texts (women and heads covered, 'because of the angels'; doctrines of male headship) that no longer make sense, when there is a perfectly simple cultural explanation for them. Pace the Fulcrum leadership team, it's that approach that leaves some of us writhing on a hook (we can change the plain sense of scripture in relation to usury, women, slavery, BUT...)

It's good to be in tuch with you again.

Tony

Hi -- I don't know the Roy Clements source. I should think he meant primary and secondary doctrine though. I am a fan of Ecclesiastes too -- not least because it takes such a swipe at other wisdom traditions... (See Walter Brueggemann's excellent Introduction to the OT, 'Canon and Christian imagiation'.) I don't understand your paragraph about Pauline and pseudo-Pauline patriarchalism or lack of it, on the one hand, and the weirdness of head-covering customs on the other. Don't misunderstand me -- I don't think there is any such thing as a plain sense of scripture the minute we are willing to see it in the context of human lives.

a lotta continua

Tony